General US Politics

[Rezzy]

I think the frog thing might be referring to this. http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

I don't know what Alex Jones said about it, since I don't really watch him, but chemicals messing with frog reproduction has been a topic for a while, anyway, since I remember talking about it in undergrad, almost a decade ago.

I think that the LGBT community is treated horribly in Russia and wish there were something I could do to change it, but I think going to war over it would cause more problems than it would fix, and very few people would support any kind of conflict on those grounds. Unfortunately, the countries that genuinely oppress LGBT outnumber those that don't, and we can't conceivably go to war with all of them over it.

Truth, be told, I found Life's original 0.03% remark a bit offensive, but it's not on the level of offense that I would have called him out for it or reacted to that level. I'm actually glad he and people like him comment here, bringing people who have opposing views to my own, since I think a big problem lately has been echo chambering. The transgirl father, I don't object to her being trans, I object to her abandoning her family. You can be trans and still be a responsible parent.

I find Life's title funny, but for different reasons. Is Alex Jones suggesting that we put something in the water in an attempt to make more people gay?

[Life]

This isn't really the point of this thread so I'll try to keep it brief

I understand why you would see a case like this to be unreasonable, and as someone who has spent a lot of time in lgbt circles, I have heard plenty of things that I can imagine most people would find absurd. However, that's not really grounds to be generally dismissive of lgbt as a group, countless of people are just trying to be themselves under conditions that do not allow them to, and dismissing the group based on outliers like someone saying they're 6 years old isn't really fair. I understand it was supposed to be more of an absurd comment, but its a sentiment that is held by a lot of people, so I still feel like it should be addressed.

The problem is (and I'll tie this back to politics) that this isn't about equality anymore. It is about control. Honestly, social justice is more a cancer than a good cause.

​I'll give a great example. Bill 28 in Ontario just cut out the terms "father" and "mother" from legislature regarding any family matters. Bill C-16 (I have spoken about this at length) will make it against the law to essentially criticize fashion (which is what the Ontario Human Rights Code describes "gender identity" as) or to even have the medical opinion that transgenderism is mental health issue.

​Language and thought are being outlawed. Or take Voltrash here. He wants me banned from the site because I am quoting a funny segment from Alex Jones (someone that I don't agree with on a lot of things) because he finds it "offensive". Tell me this isn't a problem with a straight face.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Pepe The Conquerer

[solrocknroll]

How about you actually tell the whole story for once? Crazy idea, I know.

He PM'd me this segment unsolicitedly without my consent. It wasn't public, it was a private attempt to dehumanize me. He also told me that his signature wasn't changing and that he doesn't care what i find offensive.

How about I attack a member of X group of people through private messaging and then laugh it off? If someone used a slur and I found it offensive, should I just laugh it off? Because he told me to watch the segment and laugh. That's cyberbullying. Also of note is that I am a minor, and thus his attempts to send me this segment would technically be the harassment of a minor by an adult.

It's the equivalent of sending death threats or nudes without consent. It should not be tolerated.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Voltrash

[Excellen Browning]

And people asked me why I left Toronto.

You left Toronto to go play soldier in Israel and prove your manliness/stroke your ego. Not because of social issues.

[Tetragrammaton]

I think the frog thing might be referring to this. http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

I don't know what Alex Jones said about it, since I don't really watch him, but chemicals messing with frog reproduction has been a topic for a while, anyway, since I remember talking about it in undergrad, almost a decade ago.

I think that the LGBT community is treated horribly in Russia and wish there were something I could do to change it, but I think going to war over it would cause more problems than it would fix, and very few people would support any kind of conflict on those grounds. Unfortunately, the countries that genuinely oppress LGBT outnumber those that don't, and we can't conceivably go to war with all of them over it.

Truth, be told, I found Life's original 0.03% remark a bit offensive, but it's not on the level of offense that I would have called him out for it or reacted to that level. I'm actually glad he and people like him comment here, bringing people who have opposing views to my own, since I think a big problem lately has been echo chambering. The transgirl father, I don't object to her being trans, I object to her abandoning her family. You can be trans and still be a responsible parent.

I find Life's title funny, but for different reasons. Is Alex Jones suggesting that we put something in the water in an attempt to make more people gay?

I found this after Google search: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/alex-jones-government-making-us-gay

But I think this is more reliable cause of the behavior http://www.livescience.com/20532-birth-control-water-pollution.html

[Life]

​Here's Alex Jones' rant. It's hilarious.

[Moira]

The problem is (and I'll tie this back to politics) that this isn't about equality anymore. It is about control. Honestly, social justice is more a cancer than a good cause.

​I'll give a great example. Bill 28 in Ontario just cut out the terms "father" and "mother" from legislature regarding any family matters. Bill C-16 (I have spoken about this at length) will make it against the law to essentially criticize fashion (which is what the Ontario Human Rights Code describes "gender identity" as) or to even have the medical opinion that transgenderism is mental health issue.

​Language is being outlawed. Or take Voltrash here. He wants me banned from the site because I am quoting a funny segment from Alex Jones (someone that I don't agree with on a lot of things) because he finds it "offensive". Tell me this isn't a problem with a straight face.

"social justice" is kinda broad so I'll refrain from saying anything general about it, theres a lot good and bad about it, and lots of different movements under the same banner IMO

As for the bill 28, I feel like a lot of energy is wasted on trivial things like this. Sometimes I understand where people are coming from, and agree with them, but don't think its really anywhere near a big enough deal to actually really be bothered about, but in this case I don't see why someone who doesn't mind being called mother/father shouldn't be referred to as such. I also understand (not saying I agree with) the medical opinion, but something should be said about how unhelpful it is for people to call being trans a mental health issue.

I agree with the sentiments of the first amendment, and I dislike having official government sanctions for language (obvious exceptions like advocating violence etc.). I do not have a problem on principle with informal sanctions being used against people, but I also feel like its situational. Obviously someone who says something like "go away fag" and other such things is being overly abrasive and unproductive for the conversation, but what you said comes nowhere near that threshold IMO. I would ask that you understand where Voltrash' feelings come from though, when you live as lgbt certain comments can have vastly different connotations for you.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Moira

[Life]

I agree with the sentiments of the first amendment, and I dislike having official government sanctions for language (obvious exceptions like advocating violence etc.). I do not have a problem on principle with informal sanctions being used against people, but I also feel like its situational. Obviously someone who says something like "go away fag" and other such things is being overly abrasive and unproductive for the conversation, but what you said comes nowhere near that threshold IMO. I would ask that you understand where Voltrash' feelings come from though, when you live as lgbt certain comments can have vastly different connotations for you.

I'm only responding to this point because it really needs to be talked about.

You can ask me to consider his feelings. But realize that I'm not obligated to care about his feelings. I can choose to do so. I choose not to.

​I live in the "gay capital" of the Middle East (well, pretty much the only city where you're not killed for being gay). I really couldn't care less about people being gay or trans as long as it doesn't affect my life. But it's about the fact that there is an attempt to outlaw speech. We've seen it happen in Canada. It exists in Singapore (a relatively well off country). And had Trump lost, it might have worked its way into the American system too but I do think the Constitution would have kept it at bay.

​I see this as an attempt to outlaw "wrongthink" and nothing more.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Pepe The Conquerer

[solrocknroll]

I'm only responding to this point because it really needs to be talked about.

You can ask to consider his feelings. But realize that I'm not obligated to care about his feelings. I can choose to do so. I choose not to.

​I live in the "gay capital" of the Middle East (well, pretty much the only city where you're not killed for being gay). I really couldn't care less. But it's about the fact that there is an attempt to outlaw speech. We've seen it happen in Canada. It exists in Singapore (a relatively well off country). And had Trump lost, it might have worked its way into the American system too but I do think the Constitution would have kept it at bay.

​I see this as an attempt to outlaw "wrongthink" and nothing more.

Cool, except that also puts you at risk for moderation under the site's TOS.

[Life]

Cool, except that also puts you at risk for moderation under the site's TOS.

Alright, so have me banned. Prove my point for me that this is about control rather than equality.

[Moira]

All I can do is try, right?

That article has a very different point of view, to say the least.

Either way, the two of you above me are handling it badly, because hostility isn't going to make either side change their mind/make them better people/enact any other positive change. I think the article poses a very interesting ethical question, but it's not politics, which is what this thread is about.

Eclipse touched on this sentiment, which I agree with, which is why I asked. Also, you're asking him to prove that it's about control, but there are plenty of examples of "pro SJ" people on here who have talked with you and haven't advocated for a ban, so I don't think it's a fair generalization.

[Phoenix Wright]

I think the frog thing might be referring to this. http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/

I don't know what Alex Jones said about it, since I don't really watch him, but chemicals messing with frog reproduction has been a topic for a while, anyway, since I remember talking about it in undergrad, almost a decade ago.

I think that the LGBT community is treated horribly in Russia and wish there were something I could do to change it, but I think going to war over it would cause more problems than it would fix, and very few people would support any kind of conflict on those grounds. Unfortunately, the countries that genuinely oppress LGBT outnumber those that don't, and we can't conceivably go to war with all of them over it.

Truth, be told, I found Life's original 0.03% remark a bit offensive, but it's not on the level of offense that I would have called him out for it or reacted to that level. I'm actually glad he and people like him comment here, bringing people who have opposing views to my own, since I think a big problem lately has been echo chambering. The transgirl father, I don't object to her being trans, I object to her abandoning her family. You can be trans and still be a responsible parent.

I find Life's title funny, but for different reasons. Is Alex Jones suggesting that we put something in the water in an attempt to make more people gay?

wouldn't you rather have someone who's able to talk about things thoughtfully? i don't very much care for a cherry-picker (someone who responds only to things he feels like responding to) that uses a host of fallacies as a toolbelt for "logical" argumentation lol

[Lord Raven]

The problem is (and I'll tie this back to politics) that this isn't about equality anymore. It is about control. Honestly, social justice is more a cancer than a good cause.

what are you rambling about, are you really taking what voltrash (stop changing your goddamn name so much) as gospel when it comes to people who advocate for your ill-informed strawman point of view of "social justice," or are the countless other people who argue against you in this all of a sudden cancerous? you know people have tried to take your point seriously, but you do a hell of a job ignoring people

you also realize you went on a long LONG rant about this shit citing specific cases and i basically contradicted every single point you made right? stop saying shit like this when it's been discussed ad nauseum if you're going to bring it up again, and i dont give two shits if someone like voltrash is provoking you, act like an adult and ignore it if you are provoked

and i will gladly link you to that post if you want another swing at it; http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56082&page=182#entry4598170

​I'll give a great example. Bill 28 in Ontario just cut out the terms "father" and "mother" from legislature regarding any family matters. Bill C-16 (I have spoken about this at length) will make it against the law to essentially criticize fashion (which is what the Ontario Human Rights Code describes "gender identity" as) or to even have the medical opinion that transgenderism is mental health issue.

​Language and thought are being outlawed. Or take Voltrash here. He wants me banned from the site because I am quoting a funny segment from Alex Jones (someone that I don't agree with on a lot of things) because he finds it "offensive". Tell me this isn't a problem with a straight face.

"language and thought are being outlawed" seems like the same kind of logical leap you had to make to condescend on that dude about russia earlier. actually the idea of removing "mother" and "father" from legal documents makes sense, and if anything it's much more open-ended and somehow a self-proclaimed advocate for all that is true and free is not on board with this???

pretty sure he wants you banned from this site for being generally an asshole, either that or that's a bunch of other people on this forum who can't stand you. it has little to do with your opinions, it has more to do with who you are. don't play the victim here.

Obviously someone who says something like "go away fag" and other such things is being overly abrasive and unproductive for the conversation, but what you said comes nowhere near that threshold IMO.

were you here when he threw out the actual EDIT not racial slur for transpeople and said shit like "they forfeited their right to humanity"??? i'm extremely extremely confident that a lot of this spite surfaced from that whole debacle, and not from his profile. it was exacerbated by the past few pages if anything.

Very easily.

​I don't advocate for people to go to jail for calling me a kike or calling for war against a country that doesn't believe in my ideology. In fact, I am against R v Keegstra and that is a case that I even argue with my family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra

Read it and you'll figure out why I should be for it. And like I said, I'm against it.

from my understanding he was teaching conspiracy theories at a public school and was straying pretty much off of his curriculum in many many ways, i don't know what the hell you're even arguing in favor of. he has every right to spout every single conspiracy theory he wants, but he deserved to be fired and fined for using public funding to preach anti-semitism and outright mislead a ridiculous number of students.

it's equivalent to a physics teacher who is saying that newton's laws are total fabricated bullshit and the realest physics involves geocentrism

wouldn't you rather have someone who's able to talk about things thoughtfully? i don't very much care for a cherry-picker (someone who responds only to things he feels like responding to) that uses a host of fallacies as a toolbelt for "logical" argumentation lol

i was about to respond to that exact line but you beat me to it bby, thanks

i agree that having someone who disagrees with you is good to talk to, for instance Rezzy is such a person, but let us be real for a moment life is not an example of that kind of person

Edited December 19, 2016 by Lord Raven

[solrocknroll]

Alright, so have me banned. Prove my point for me that this is about control rather than equality.

Except you have harassed me endlessly for months about things like this. This isn't okay, and it isn't about control.

[Life]

All I can do is try, right?

Eclipse touched on this sentiment, which I agree with, which is why I asked. Also, you're asking him to prove that it's about control, but there are plenty of examples of "pro SJ" people on here who have talked with you and haven't advocated for a ban, so I don't think it's a fair generalization.

Would you protest if I were to be banned?

Prof. ​Jordan Peterson made an excellent point about this in one of his videos. Voltrash is what Peterson calls a PC Authoritarian. The vast majority of you are PC Liberals. He makes the point that the vast majority of PC Liberals wouldn't call for what a PC Authoritarian wants but wouldn't really contest it.

​I'll look for the video because there's a lot of them.

from my understanding he was teaching conspiracy theories at a public school and was straying pretty much off of his curriculum in many many ways, i don't know what the hell you're even arguing in favor of. he has every right to spout every single conspiracy theory he wants, but he deserved to be fired and fined for using public funding to preach anti-semitism and outright mislead a ridiculous number of students.

it's equivalent to a physics teacher who is saying that newton's laws are total fabricated bullshit and the realest physics involves geocentrism

Few points that you're missing.

- It's a provincial problem, not a federal one. It shouldn't be a federal issue at any point because education is handled at the provincial level.

​- This is more an issue that arises from the fact that public schools can't fire teachers no matter what. Which should be changed by provincial law, not federal.

​- If Keegstra had been teaching in a private school, this wouldn't become a grey area. The only reason it is a grey area is because it is done in a public school where (like I said) teachers can't be fired unless they commit a criminal act.

​- This was the case that opened the door for all sorts of legislation that targets free speech under the guise of "hate speech".

Edited December 19, 2016 by Pepe The Conquerer

[Rezzy]

wouldn't you rather have someone who's able to talk about things thoughtfully? i don't very much care for a cherry-picker (someone who responds only to things he feels like responding to) that uses a host of fallacies as a toolbelt for "logical" argumentation lol

If I see logical fallacies, it just makes to argument unsound, but even people who don't have the best argument have the virtue of bringing a different point of view to things.

I like to know what people on the opposing side think. It helps me to strengthen my own arguments.

[Lord Raven]

Would you protest if I were to be banned?

Prof. ​Jordan Peterson made an excellent point about this in one of his videos. Voltrash is what Peterson calls a PC Authoritarian. The vast majority of you are PC Liberals. He makes the point that the vast majority of PC Liberals wouldn't call for what a PC Authoritarian wants but wouldn't really contest it.

​I'll look for the video because there's a lot of them.

nobody is going to watch a video. make the point yourself on your own goddamn merits or don't say it at all.

If I see logical fallacies, it just makes to argument unsound, but even people who don't have the best argument have the virtue of bringing a different point of view to things.

I like to know what people on the opposing side think. It helps me to strengthen my own arguments.

the discussion is one-sided and you're talking to a wall when it comes to certain users. that's an echo chamber with drapes

Edited December 19, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Moira]

were you here when he threw out the actual racial slur for transpeople and said shit like "they forfeited their right to humanity"??? i'm extremely extremely confident that a lot of this spite surfaced from that whole debacle, and not from his profile. it was exacerbated by the past few pages if anything.

I wasn't, and I'm gonna be a little upset if he was falsely playing the victim when I tried to meet him halfway

As for protesting your ban, realistically no because It's an internet forum, but if it were something like a government sanction I would protest it (in the general sense of protest)

Especially because multiple people are saying you've done some pretty over the threshold stuff

[The Geek]

I believe the Alex Jones comment is talking about a case where it was found that residue from birth control and other feminine hormone supplements was found to affect animals in aquatic ecosystems. I'm not familiar with the "gay frogs" case, but in one of my classes we did recently discuss an observation where it was found that pollution by these hormones caused there to be a lack of male offspring in the fish species studied.

It's honestly a bit of a red herring (ha, puns) if he's trying to connect it to LGBT+ issues. I think it says way more about inadequacies in our water treatment infrastructure.

[Phoenix Wright]

Would you protest if I were to be banned?

Prof. ​Jordan Peterson made an excellent point about this in one of his videos. Voltrash is what Peterson calls a PC Authoritarian. The vast majority of you are PC Liberals. He makes the point that the vast majority of PC Liberals wouldn't call for what a PC Authoritarian wants but wouldn't really contest it.

if you think silence in your (theoretical) banning is evidence of "pc liberalism," you are begging for some way to be the victim, regardless of the context or subtlety of the situation.

i was about to respond to that exact line but you beat me to it bby, thanks

i agree that having someone who disagrees with you is good to talk to, for instance Rezzy is such a person, but let us be real for a moment life is not an example of that kind of person

np :D

Edited December 19, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

nobody is going to watch a video. make the point yourself on your own goddamn merits or don't say it at all. the discussion is one-sided and you're talking to a wall when it comes to certain users. that's an echo chamber with drapes

True, I got into an argument with Life on one occasion, but I only really have two buttons that set me off, and I generally have a thick skin otherwise. I just like seeing people put forth their opinions however well or poorly they may do so and judge then for myself. I wish everyone could be more polite, but I'm not really in a position to change anything, there.

My views also tend to be pretty atypical in general. From what I've seen, Eclipse is closest to my views, but I could always be wrong there, and who knows if she agrees.

[Life]

if you think silence in your (theoretical) banning is evidence of "pc liberalism," you are begging for some way to be the victim, regardless of the context or subtlety of the situation.

How so?

​I'm simply saying that the left and social justice are infested with authoritarians who seek to impose their will on others. I am against authoritarianism, both from the left and the right. I think you're for it if it doesn't hurt you.

​I would prefer not to be the sacrificial lamb here. But if I am, my point has been proven to be true.

[eclipse]

My views also tend to be pretty atypical in general. From what I've seen, Eclipse is closest to my views, but I could always be wrong there, and who knows if she agrees.

Nope, banned

I just read through the topic. I'm going to read through it again, to make sure I'm not missing any context.

IN THE MEANTIME, this is the politics thread, not the whine-about-other-people thread. I don't need to see any more of the latter.

[Phoenix Wright]

How so?

​I'm simply saying that the left and social justice are infested with authoritarians who seek to impose their will on others. I am against authoritarianism, both from the left and the right. I think you're for it if it doesn't hurt you.

​I would prefer not to be the sacrificial lamb here. But if I am, my point has been proven to be true.

what could possibly set you off to the thought that i'm an "authoritarian" when it suits me? pm me if you need to.

you aren't a martyr hahahaha. the fact that you're so melodramatic is all anyone needs to see to know your a1 is to play victim. but you do it so poorly it just comes off as annoying.

i didn't protest the banning of any members i previously enjoyed, let alone those people i actively dislike lol. what's more, this forum isn't a democracy in the first place. it is by nature autocratic. and also, it's a privately owned website, so i wouldn't have any right to protest in the first place.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Lord Raven]

- It's a provincial problem, not a federal one. It shouldn't be a federal issue at any point because education is handled at the provincial level.

it was appealed to the federal level... it started in the provincial level

​- This is more an issue that arises from the fact that public schools can't fire teachers no matter what. Which should be changed by provincial law, not federal.

yes they can, what

- If Keegstra had been teaching in a private school, this wouldn't become a grey area.

yeah because the regulations are much less strict for private schools.

The only reason it is a grey area is because it is done in a public school where (like I said) teachers can't be fired unless they commit a criminal act.

i'm googling this claim and it is 100% inaccurate, the only nuance is that it's actually very difficult to fire teachers in canada for whatever reason. the guy got his teaching license suspended for being completely out-and-out incompetent, but also because he was out-and-out fucking racist, so naturally they were going to try to get him fired for being incompetent. this isn't free speech bullshit, this is someone getting fired for being bad at his job.

i'm not sure why you have an issue with this, that's less government dollars funneled into incompetence, and you hate the government and believe in meritocracy

- This was the case that opened the door for all sorts of legislation that targets free speech under the guise of "hate speech".

i'm curious what your issue is of outlawing racist propaganda beyond simple free speech.

i'm also curious how the case was relevant to those because it seems like the legislation was already in place before this guy got his ass canned

free speech as it stands is not a sound argument, because free speech incites negativity too

furthermore, i'm seeing this on wikipedia:

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; © if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada

it doesn't seem like a very restrictive thing to begin with, it sounds like more of a "you can't incite hatred in public." there's a lot of things you can't do in public

Edited December 19, 2016 by Lord Raven